Forum:Possibly Non-Canonical stories
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Index → Panopticon → Possibly Non-Canonical stories
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
So I have created a new Category recently, entitled Possibly Non-canonical stories. It was created for stories that are possibly non-cannon, because they cantradict other stories, or break a wall that seperates the Real world (where you and I are) and the Doctor Who world. (for instance, I dobt that there is a single whovian out there that has doubted than Cannonicity of the John and Gillian comics.) I have been informed, however, that before this idea is passed, that I need to talk it over with the group, and that those in higher power do not approve. OttselSpy25 talk to me 17:24, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I deleted the category as it something of a big change to claim that all these stories are "possibly non-canonical". Furthermore, I did not sat that "those in higher power do not approve" - my exact words were "I for one am strongly against the idea". I just think this comes down to personal opinion and you can't really profess to be an encyclopaedia if you pick and choose the bits that make sense.--Skittles the hog - talk 17:28, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually, thank you very much. I was hoping someone would delete it. And, uh, sorry that I appear to have offended you with the "higher in power" statement, I completely understand how that must have felt to you. Have a nice day, then. OttselSpy25 talk to me 17:37, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- So did you delete the references to the category, or just the category itself? That is, are we stuck with a lot of pages which need to have those cats removed? If so, lemme know. Because this is a no-go. Categories are meaningless unless they declare something unambiguously. category:Restaurants is for things that are restaurants; not for things which might be restaurants. If we start down the road of adding adverbs to category names, we're on a very slippery slope indeed. Plus, you're kinda wrong about the J&G stroies being possibly non-canonical. They're fully canonical — not only by the rules of this wiki, but by virtue of The Land of Happy Endings. The explicit point of that narrative was to honour the artists of the 1960s by bringing their work into the continuity of the DWM run by suggesting that the Eighth Doctor regularly dreamed of J&G. Take a look at the last page again; it's pretty clear.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:42: Wed 12 Oct 2011
- So did you delete the references to the category, or just the category itself? That is, are we stuck with a lot of pages which need to have those cats removed? If so, lemme know. Because this is a no-go. Categories are meaningless unless they declare something unambiguously. category:Restaurants is for things that are restaurants; not for things which might be restaurants. If we start down the road of adding adverbs to category names, we're on a very slippery slope indeed. Plus, you're kinda wrong about the J&G stroies being possibly non-canonical. They're fully canonical — not only by the rules of this wiki, but by virtue of The Land of Happy Endings. The explicit point of that narrative was to honour the artists of the 1960s by bringing their work into the continuity of the DWM run by suggesting that the Eighth Doctor regularly dreamed of J&G. Take a look at the last page again; it's pretty clear.
- Well, actually, thank you very much. I was hoping someone would delete it. And, uh, sorry that I appear to have offended you with the "higher in power" statement, I completely understand how that must have felt to you. Have a nice day, then. OttselSpy25 talk to me 17:37, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- It does appear there's lots of articles stuck with categories that needed removing.
- I've removed them manually, yes, I know, bot and all that, easy to do without manual editing. But it gives me a reason to look at stories I'd likely not get around to looking at. 27 isn't that many. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:48, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
